Compromise in non-compoundable Section 307 cases justifies sentence reduction while maintaining the conviction.

On December 3, 2018, the complainant (Anmol Jain) and his friends were intercepted by the appellants and their associates at Karmaita turning.

Appellant Akash Dubey and others allegedly assaulted Mohit Vishwakarma with a knife, causing injuries to his chest and leg, while appellant Jay Choudhary assaulted him with hands and fists.

The Trial Court convicted Akash Dubey under Section 307 of the IPC and Jay Choudhary under Section 307/34 of the IPC, sentencing both to five years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹2,000.

During the pendency of the appeals, the parties filed applications for compounding the offences, stating they had amicably settled the dispute of their own free will.

The appellants did not challenge the merits of the conviction but prayed for a reduction of the sentence to the period already undergone.

1. Whether the conviction of the appellants under Section 307 and 307/34 of the IPC is sustainable based on the evidence on record.

2. Whether an offence under Section 307 of the IPC, being non-compoundable under Section 320 of the CrPC, can be mitigated in terms of sentencing due to a post-conviction compromise between the parties.

The Court applied Sections 307 (Attempt to murder) and 34 (Common intention) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

It examined Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) regarding the non-compoundability of Section 307 IPC.

It relied on Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) regarding the personal nature of some Section 307 cases.

The Court cited Ishwar Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2009) regarding compromise as a relevant circumstance for sentencing.

It referenced Unnikrishnan alias Unnikuttan v. State of Kerala (2017) which establishes that courts may reduce a sentence to the period already undergone in view of a compromise, even if the offence is non-compoundable.

The Court first affirmed the conviction, noting that the prosecution's case was fortified by eyewitness testimony and medical evidence, rendering the Trial Court’s findings sound.

Regarding the sentence, the Court observed that while Section 307 is non-compoundable under Section 320 CrPC, a genuine compromise is a significant mitigating factor to "avoid bitterness" and restore relations.

The Court noted that the appellants were first-time offenders who had been facing trial since 2018.

Akash Dubey had served approximately seven months and ten days, while Jay Choudhary had served six months and eleven days in total incarceration.

Given the amicable settlement and the time already served, the Court determined that further imprisonment was unnecessary to meet the ends of justice.

The Court modified the sentence by reducing the term of imprisonment to the period already undergone by each appellant.

The fine was enhanced from ₹2,000 to ₹10,000 for each appellant.

The Court ordered the appellants' immediate release, subject to the payment of the enhanced fine within 60 days.